No. I want the government to stop selfish individuals from fucking me up the ass.
I am curious: if the majority of the community decided it would be in their best interest to seize the property under eminent domain and sell it to, I don’t know, Wal-Hog Rendering Plant and Petrochemical Refinery, a newly-formed subsidiary of Walmart, would you be in support of this taking? If not, why not?
Private property may be taken for public use, with “just compensation”. Read the frigggin 5th amendment of the U.S Constitution. I don’t care if the developer is offering more, all the government has to pay her is the fair market value.
I agree wholeheartedly with the county.
No. Their rights extend only as far as protecting themselves from harm, not to furthering any interests beyond that.
When conservatives advocated that the environment be destroyed.
And my point is that just because something is legal does not mean it is right.
What if they determine that not having a Wal-Hog Rendering Plant and Petrochemical Refinery in their town would be harming their economic well-being? Who gets to decide if they are right or not?
When governments determine fair market value, the economy is socialist by definition. In a capitalist economy, offers such as that from the developer determine fair market value. That’s what “market” means.
Yeah, but who determines what “harm” is? The community can, as it is in this case, which you seem to agree with, argue that allowing development of that land would harm the community. (And, of course, you could also argue that developing that land would help the community, too, by providing housing for old people who need it).
On the other hand, it could also argue that the absence of the “Wal-Hog Rendering Plant and Petrochemical Refinery” harms the community.
Who determines what “harm” is in any case? The government has to step in sometime. That’s what it’s for.
Who is being harmed by this land being sold to developers, and how are they being harmed?
Fine by me.
That’s why socialism is better than capitalism. The rights of the many are protected from the avarice of a few.
The community who doesn’t want their land values and quality of life destroyed by low life develpments.
Oh, Dio, that is your naivest remark yet. Only a privileged few fatcat bureaucrats can fit into the poliburo.
Woah, Nellie! You have advocated that their land values be determined by government. How can they possibly go down unless by decree?
The decree of democratically elected officials, subject to the popular will.
Sure, but, as has been mentioned in this thread, eminent domain has been used in a lot of cases to benefit large retailers like Walmart and Target, and in those cases, the communities that exercised the eminent domain said that did it to prevent harm to the community. And, I’m pretty sure, from this thread, that you wouldn’t accept those actions. So, really, it seems like it’s not the government deciding what “harm” is, it’s you. You’ve decided that Walmart harms communities, and further, you’ve decided that development harms communities. And further, you’ve decided that what the developers would pay her isn’t a “fair market price”.
Now, this is all fine, of course. We all have a set of moral beliefs, and these beliefs come from your convictions, but I’d like to see the reasoning behind your statements. Why do you believe that the development of this property would be a bad thing for the area, and why do you believe that the valuation the developers have placed on the land is too high?
OK by me.
But I assume I can refer back to this thread when someone suggests same-sex marriage should be imposed over the decree of democratically elected officials, subject to the will of the people?
Those democratically elected officials are still bound within the limits of the US Constutution. They can’t take away rights afforded by the COTUS without changing the COTUS. I know you think the right to marriage is not in the COTUS but I’m just giving you a heads up on where I, for one, would take such an attempt to show ideological inconsistency.
DtC,
There are many, many cases where local governments are using eminent domain to procure land not for parks, but for developers. Here’s a good example. Do you support the government in this case, or the homeowners? If the latter, what are the pertinent differences between this and the case in the OP?